GAIN Care Limited - Leeds

On this page

• Overview
• Assessing needs
• Delivering evidence-based care and treatment
• How staff, teams and services work together
• Supporting people to live healthier lives
• Monitoring and improving outcomes
• Consent to care and treatment

Effective – this means we looked for evidence that people’s care, treatment and support achieved good outcomes and promoted a good quality of life, based on best available evidence.

At our last assessment we rated this key question requires improvement. At this assessment the rating has changed to good. This meant people’s outcomes were consistently good, and people’s feedback confirmed this.

This service scored 75 (out of 100) for this area. Find out what we look at when we assess this area and How we calculate these scores.

The provider made sure people’s care and treatment was effective by assessing and reviewing their health, care, wellbeing and communication needs with them.

A relative told us, “Risk assessments were carried out by asking questions about [person’s] mobility and state of health. The company did a thorough and comprehensive care plan.” Another relative commented, “When [person] came out of hospital, the company sent 2 carers to begin with as they needed to assess how well [person] could manage and if [person] could manage with one carer at each call.”

The provider planned and delivered people’s care and treatment with them, including what was important and mattered to them. They did this in line with legislation and current evidence-based good practice and standards.

People’s needs were assessed holistically and this assessment generated individual risk assessments and care plans. We saw assessments and care plans included individual risk assessments such as skin integrity and falls. These tools were based on evidence-based practice.

People and relatives told us staff had access to care plans that guided how care should be provided, and this was followed.

The provider worked well across teams and services to support people. They made sure people only needed to tell their story once by sharing their assessment of needs when people moved between different services.

Staff told us they worked well as a team and they had access to information that was up to date about people’s needs, including if there were any change in needs.

There were systems in place to ensure staff alongside other health professionals in an effective way, if required. A relative told us, “They are very well trained and after a SALT [speech and language therapist] assessment, they will slowly feed my [relative] so [they do] not choke and [their] food is soft.”

The provider supported people to manage their health and wellbeing to maximise their independence, choice and control. Staff supported people to live healthier lives and where possible, reduce their future needs for care and support.

Care was provided in a way that increased people’s opportunities to be involved in leisure activities.

Relatives told us that care provided by the service supported their wellbeing too. Comments included, “[Person] has Alzheimer’s and they do everything for [them] allowing me to be [person’s] husband, not [their] carer.”

The provider routinely monitored people’s care and treatment to continuously improve it. They ensured that outcomes were positive and consistent, and that they met both clinical expectations and the expectations of people themselves.

People’s care was regularly reviewed and changes put in place if required. This was evidenced in their care plans.

People and relatives appreciated the regular review meetings and the involvement of the registered manager. Their comments included, “The care plan is regularly reviewed by the manager, and she comes out to visit us to make sure we have everything we need” and “Care is reviewed regularly in person by the manager and she also phones to check.”

The provider told people about their rights around consent and respected these when delivering person-centred care and treatment.

There were policies and procedures in place to gain consent from people or apply the requirements of the mental capacity act. We found improvements had been made in recording mental capacity assessments and best interests for people using the service.

Staff sought consent appropriately. A relative told us, “They always ask how [person] is when they arrive and always ask [person] if it is ok to perform a task, they never assume, so they always gain consent from [person], which is very respectful.” Another relative said, “Although my [relative] is non-verbal, they will say to [them] what they are going to do next, not just take it for granted.”